I think drive-ins are a wonderful concept and a romantic one -- but in practice I've yet to experience a situation that I actually enjoyed to be honest, at least as far as the cinematic end is concerned! The projectors at the drive-ins I've been through were SO dim it was impossible to see what was going on at times (especially when I saw JURASSIC WORLD for the first time), and that was the big problem. I enjoyed the fresh air and overall atmosphere, but...maybe I just need to go to a quality drive-in. We don't have many options up here these days.
Maybe I just need to go in your Ridgeline the next time! Agreed on the start times though, that's a problem too. What ADULT would even stay for the 2nd half of the double-bill?? When we got out of JURASSIC WORLD (which we saw at a Pennsylvania drive-in when Theo was 1 -- we were traveling home from a trip and had nothing else to do), MAD MAX FURY ROAD was starting nearly at 11.
Yeah, I don't think I'd ever go see a first run movie at a drive in, at least not a film I cared about. It's more for the atmosphere. Our drive in has digital projection, so the picture is quite good, they have a playground under the screens, so while you are there waiting for the movie to start the kids can play, but yeah, I'd never see something like 1917 or Tenet there...but a movie I've seen before, it's great...being out under the stars, the cool breeze- it's a nice evening.
Doesn't beat going to an Alamo Drafthouse though. (no alcohol at the drive in!)
The prices are so low, so I guess the 2nd, late show is just an added bonus. All 3 of us got in for like 35 bucks, which included a pass that let us bring in our own food. Some families were grilling out!
Akira Kurosawa's tragic epic has lost none of its potency since its 1985 release, and remains a paragon of artistry, and an indelible viewing experience. Drawing on King Lear for inspiration, Ran likewise is the story of an aging potentate who splits his realm among his three children, and sets in motion a downward spiral of treachery and betrayal (and the inevitable carnage they inspire) which ultimately engulfs all the characters.
In contrast to the naturalism (and black and white photography) of his heyday in the 1950s and 60s, Kurosawa opts for a more "formalist" (and color) approach here. Shot in authentic fortresses and the surreal volcanic slopes of Fujiyama, the staging and set-ups throughout Ran are more reminiscent of painting than is commonly deployed in cinema -- many scenes play out in a single "master shot", while the use of long lenses "flatten" the imagery. This does give much of the film a "static" quality (so-much-so that Ran might almost seem incomprehensible to a teenager weaned on MCU movies) but it results in a striking visual aesthetic; there is barely a perfunctory shot in the entire movie, and almost every fame of Ran is like a work of art. The film's centerpiece (the assault on the Third Castle) is arguably the most arresting (and devastating) battle sequence ever filmed, and its kinetic imagery forms a striking contrast to the more "theatrical" tableaux of the scenes which precede it.
Toru Takemitsu’s score enshrouds the film in mythic aura, contrasting a Mahler-esque symphonic approach in some scenes with traditional Japanese "noh" instruments in others. The attack on the Third Castle contains no dialogue or sound effects, only Takemitsu’s music, giving the entire sequence the surreal quality of a nightmare.
StudioCanal’s transfer is phenomenal (the best to date for this film), in which Kurosawa’s resourceful use of color is done full justice, and Takemitsu’s score finally properly reproduced (every single DVD of Ran I ever owned suffered from audio “wow” in the soundtrack — which ruined the battle sequence).
Kurosawa made a number of genuinely classic films, but his two uncontestable masterpieces (in my opinion) are Seven Samurai and Ran. Ran is one of those rare films that leaves the viewer changed, and immersed in a more contemplative, reflective state of mind — and is certainly among the greatest films ever made.
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Wed Jul 29, 2020 10:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
I love RAN - epic masterpiece. It is like watching a large scale painting that changes right before your eyes. The first time I ever saw it I was completely awed by how vibrant and immense the color schemes were. The movie is incredibly haunting and, as you say, is an "indelible viewing experience." Takemitsu's music matched with Kurosawa's visuals have stuck with me from the very first viewing and has never left my mind. Brilliant.
Another "cult movie" I never saw until now. Ira Levin's story is more or less a re-tread of Rosemary's Baby -- young housewife suspects something diabolical is up with weird neighbors. The film certainly features high pedigree of talent -- a script by William Goldman, directed by Bryan Forbes, with Katherine Ross in the lead.
At the time Levin's novel was published, "Women's Lib" was in its infancy, and an exciting new concept for women -- and somewhat frightening to men. Of course in the 1970s, "Women's Lib" was little more than the idea that a woman could have both a career and a family, and maybe wear hot pants (remember those?).
As such, The Stepford Wives comes across as very dated today. Although she longs to "make it" as a photographer, protagonist Joanna Eberhart (Ross) does love her husband (despite his obstinance), and her children. She doesn't mind housework and taking care of the kids, she would just like to have a career as well. Compare that to 2020, when being an "independent woman" means having a career, children via sperm donor, and a submitted partner (whether male, female, non-binary, etc.). Viewed through the prism of today, the kind of woman Joanna's husband wants seems barely any different from Joanna herself. At the conclusion of the film "robot Joanna" strides down the grocery store aisle dressed in fetching attire. Well, the real Joanna was already grocery shopping -- and already quite fetching in her crop tops and cutoff shorts. Why replace her at all?
The "big reveal" -- while disturbing -- didn't really cut it for me. Yes, husbands eliminating their wives in favor of compliant robots is certainly chilling, but not as effective as other scenarios the story might have posited. I think it would have been more effective had the husbands kept their wives alive, but imposed control over them with some kind of electronic brain implants -- leaving them cognizant of all that is happening, but unable to exercise free will (like the Borg in Star Trek: The Next Generation).
The story also fails to address some larger questions. How would the children relate to the robot replacements? They would know immediately that the robot is not "mommy" (as would the wives' relatives during family visits). Why murder the wives? That seems pretty severe. Why not just divorce them and live happily ever-after with their robots? Inevitably the husbands' dirty deed will be exposed -- because in 10-15 years people will people start noticing that the "wives" have not aged, and someone will start to investigate what's going on.
For a feature film, the production value feels slim, and the whole visual style has the look of a TV movie, except for selected scenes which are shot like a 1970s commercial (one half expects Ross to start singing "I'd like to buy the world a Coke..."). I will say that Ross does carry the film very well, and is a strong protagonist (and easy on the eyes to boot). In some ways the film is prescient, as Stepford is home to numerous "tech giants" -- predicting the emergence Silicon Valley a number of years later. It is also interesting to see a little Mary Stewart Masterson as Ross' daughter. But ultimately, while The Stepford Wives is sometimes suspenseful, it's just not that suspenseful, and ultimately little more than a time passer. It's too bad, because although it is somewhat dated today, Levin's premise still has the potential for an effective thriller -- but the film is just not very thrilling.
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Thu Jan 18, 2024 1:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Belated reply on this. I was totally unimpressed with "Stepford Wives" for a couple reasons. The first problem is Katharine Ross. I have never found her an interesting presence. I admit, I have never seen "The Graduate" or "Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid" which is what boosted her profile to be the lead in this film, but that negativity wasn't just the product of seeing "The Swarm" and her valium-induced performance there. The 60s TV guest shots I've seen never impressed me and on "The Colbys" I kept wondering why in the hell would Charlton Heston leave the much more interesting and desirable Stephanie Beacham for her???
The other problem with "Stepford" is that the idea of the men dressing the wives in those long outfits always came off as ridiculous to me. And indeed, that's not how William Goldman scripted it. The "Stepfords" were supposed to dress more provocatively, but that went out the window when Bryan Forbes the director decided to cast his wife Nanette Newman in one of the roles and Newman was totally averse to wearing anything provocative so this bit of directorial nepotism resulted in the script being altered to its detriment. Goldman also was upset over some other changes Forbes made.
^^Interesting, thanks for the background on that. I did like The Graduate (it's definitely "edgy" and even a little disturbing -- in that way that some films from the 60s and early 70s can be -- but I thought both she and Hoffmann are fundamentally likable in it). I've only seen bits of Butch Cassidy.
Interesting about the costumes -- I was watching the movie and thinking "Why would any man find that look attractive?"
I got this on sale from Kino Lorber, a blind buy, but I do love me some Walter Matthau. He's the type of actor we'll never get again...not terribly handsome, sort of schlubby, oddly long hands (as a kid they struck me as odd in Dennis the Menace), but with a great voice, and able to play just about any type of character...the bad guy (Charade), curmudgeon young and old (Odd Couple & Grumpy Old Men), everyman hero (Taking of Pelham 123). He's never less than great.
Anyways, Charley Varrick is a crime movie from the 70's, by Don Seigel. Matthau hated it apparently, but I really enjoyed it. I was very much reminded of No County for Old Men, as the plots are very similar in some respects. Joe Don Baker is good as the assassin (I was shocked to see him so in shape- I'm used to the fat Joe Don Baker from Mitchell or Goldeneye!)
The movie takes its time juggling lots of characters (John Vernon is fun as a slimy back president) and the cinematography is pure 1970's (everything is dirty, sweaty, and real looking).Nothing looked fake (except the bright red blood).
I wasn't sure where the film was going, which I appreciate, and the ending tied everything together well. I recommend the movie!
Basil Poledouris' score is certainly one of the finest ever written for a fantasy film, charged with aggressive valor and visceral choral writing. Almost operatic in style (and artistry) the score is what brings the picture to life, and is without a doubt the best thing Poledouris ever created.
I rewatched the film last night, totally agree with Paul, this movie holds up just so well.
One note on the mixes of these Blu-Rays -- the US Blu-Ray and the Fox international Blu-Rays all (with ONE exception) have a 5.1 stereo track that's actually really excellent, though it's flawed. The chorus is missing in some sections, which is a bummer, though the track is a true, legitimate stereo remix with actual channel separation. Clearly someone went back to the music elements, didn't use the choral tracks (who knows where those went), but the sound design is really everything the soundtrack SHOULD have been -- had Dino not been so cheap that he thought it was OK that the movie went out in a terribly constrained mono soundtrack instead!
The French tried to "fix" the choral section with their own Blu-Ray -- but the 5.1 track they created is just the mono track "rechanneled" for 5.1 with no discrete channel information. It sounds lousy (though they did adjust the day/night sequences to make them a little more accurate).
Hopefully we get a quality 4K UHD of this one day from Universal...fingers crossed!
Mary, Queen Of Scots (1971) 6.5 of 10
-A Kino Lorber bargain buy. Thank goodness I had a reasonable amount of existing knowledge about the event or else this would have been a trifle difficult to sit through. For some reason I have never gravitated much toward the 60s-early 70s English history epics even though I've had to teach about these events in History of Civilization classes in the past. "Lion In Winter" is the only one I have seen in the past while films like "Becket", "Man For All Seasons", "Anne Of The Thousand Days" etc. remain unseen by me.
-The performances are good (Timothy Dalton, as he did in "Lion In Winter" proved to me that he was better in these kind of roles than as 007). I know that from a real history standpoint, the biggest license was having Mary and Elizabeth meet face-to-face which never happened. I can probably grant that (though George MacDonald Fraser in his great book on History and Hollywood assailed the film for that). The implied homosexual relationship between Dalton and Ian Holm though appears to be a more serious fiction of the film. But I think the reason why the film doesn't particularly grab me is that it takes a VERY complex piece of history regarding the succession and religious squabbles in England and Scotland in this period and tries to badly oversimplify it by giving us a Mary who is like a Joan of Arc saint while Elizabeth I out of necessity must by default become the scheming villainess of the piece. I suppose ultimately it's because the real history with its complexities is fascinating enough that an overly simplified drama that has to give us a heroine and a villainess can't measure up.
-I don't know which film Barry scored first but there were a LOT of cues that gave me flashbacks to "Diamonds Are Forever".
-The commentary track I shut off after 20 minutes. The guy not only had an irritating voice that I couldn't possibly give 128 minutes too he was giving us slow methodical recitations of the careers of the actors and I'm sorry but four minutes to give us a summary of "The Prisoner" when talking about Patrick McGoohan is not a good idea. (Although I have to confess when McGoohan sends Mary into exile, I couldn't help but for a second envision him using his familiar line, "Be seeing you.")
"Lion In Winter" is the only one I have seen in the past while films like "Becket", "Man For All Seasons", "Anne Of The Thousand Days" etc. remain unseen by me
Every one of those is a much better film than MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS in particular is a classic.
Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:35 am
"Lion In Winter" is the only one I have seen in the past while films like "Becket", "Man For All Seasons", "Anne Of The Thousand Days" etc. remain unseen by me
I highly recommend A Man For All Seasons, Eric. I think you would really enjoy that film. It is more than just a "costume piece" but a compelling portrait of a man who could not compromise his faith-based conscience and convictions.
And the cast — Paul Scofield, Wendy Hiller, Leo McKern, Susanna York, John Hurt — and Robert Shaw as Henry VIII.
If you plan to watch Anne of the Thousand Days, I recommend viewing A Man For All Seasons first, as the latter is not only the better film but the background it provides on Sir Thomas More gives a little more weight to the former.
As far as Mary, Queen of Scots, count me as a fan of the film. It may not be in the pantheon of historic dramas, but I think the performances are phenomenal, and the visual style is just sumptuous. I freely admit some bias, as my roots are mostly Scottish so I have a strong interest in Scottish history (and that of England as well), so it's an easy sell for me!
I've also been to some of the locations, like Hermitage Castle (if you look closely when watching Mary, Queen of Scots, you'll notice that Hermitage Castle doesn't have a roof on it!). I've also been to Alwnick Castle -- a castle in Northern England which is used as the French castle from which Mary departs, and then in a later scene serves as the Scottish castle at which she arrives!
Eric Paddon wrote:
I know that from a real history standpoint, the biggest license was having Mary and Elizabeth meet face-to-face which never happened. I can probably grant that (though George MacDonald Fraser in his great book on History and Hollywood assailed the film for that). The implied homosexual relationship between Dalton and Ian Holm though appears to be a more serious fiction of the film.
I can excuse such "artistic license" as relatively innocuous -- most historic movies are guilty of this (as are Shakespeare's plays). The speculative homosexual relationship between Riccio and Darnley is not so implausible to me -- homosexuality was not unheard-of among the aristocracy, and Darnley's own son, James I, is generally supposed to have had a number of male lovers.
The film struck me personally as an attempt to present a sympathetic depiction of both Mary and Elizabeth. I am not a fan of Mary Stuart though. As much as Vanessa Redgrave does elicit sympathy in her performance, there is (from my perspective) no way to excuse the historic Mary's endless acts of arrogance, tactlessness and treachery. In mitigation she was seduced and cajoled by men -- but that only reinforces (to me) that she was easily manipulated, and not fit to rule.
Contrast her with Elizabeth, who was of a much more resiliant character, and had to contend with more than the usual threats from assassins and usurpers. Unlike Mary, Elizabeth was largely immune from charmers (and even one of her favorites, the Earl of Essex, couldn't charm his way out of being executed). It is likely Elizabeth went to her grave a virgin; certainly she was paragon of wisdom and sobriety (unlike Mary).
Interestingly, Glenda Jackson also played Elizabeth Tudor in the BBC production Elizabeth R, just prior to appearing in Mary, Queen of Scots.
Astute Star Wars geeks will notice Jeremy Bulloch (Boba Fett) in the role of Mary's servant, Andrew.
-I don't know which film Barry scored first but there were a LOT of cues that gave me flashbacks to "Diamonds Are Forever".
Both films were 1971 releases, so Barry composed both with months of each other (perhaps even back-to-back) Also, Barry of course had a very consistent style, so I just chalk the similarities up to that. Plus Barry recorded both scores in the same studio (CTS Bayswater) with the same engineer (John Richards) and most likely with many of the same musicians.
Barry's score is one of my all-time favorites, and his two primary themes -- the love theme, and Mary's song "Vivre et Mourir" -- are to me two of his most gorgeous melodies ever. I wish he'd done more historic pictures.
One thing I do find a bit odd is that a movie that clocks-in at about two hours has an overture and an intermission!
There wasn't an overture/intermission on the Blu-Ray I saw. I guess Barry composed one but the film wasn't released that way ultimately or at least it's not on the prints that are used.
I'll give kudos to Jackson's performance too even if they leaned more against Elizabeth in the film. The one part of the commentary I did listen to before I got fed up did reveal that Jackson was willing to play the part again after the TV production only if she got all her shooting out of the way in three weeks so they filmed all of her scenes first.
I would certainly give Man For All Seasons a chance at some point. I've never been a fan of Bujold, so I'd be more reluctant to dive into "Anne" just for that reason.
-This is the original 1985 BBC TV-movie production starring Joss Ackland and Claire Bloom, not the 1993 feature version. The 85 production is simply put, absolute perfection. Ackland and Bloom nail the parts of C.S. Lewis and Joy Davidman perfectly and unlike the 93 film, historical accuracy (Joy is properly shown with two sons) and more importantly the *meaning* of their relationship isn't tossed aside. Lewis and Joy came together because of Christianity. Without it, there was no possibility of any relationship. Lewis's relationship with her with the happiness and grief it caused required him to take a closer look at what he'd always devoted himself to in being the 20th century's greatest Christian apologist. Remove that element and all you get (as there was in Attenborough's film) is a story of a middle-aged couple enjoying a brief interlude of happiness that has no deeper point.
Agreed on the start times though, that's a problem too. What ADULT would even stay for the 2nd half of the double-bill?? When we got out of JURASSIC WORLD (which we saw at a Pennsylvania drive-in when Theo was 1 -- we were traveling home from a trip and had nothing else to do), MAD MAX FURY ROAD was starting nearly at 11.
